President Obama just earned my vote for 2012

[Slyfox696]

It's the system though. It's not like Al Gore was the only victim of losing the popular vote.

Agreed, just the most recent example.

Al Gore didn't even win his home state. If he took care of business at home, then he would have won.

And if I were a Democrat born in Austin, Texas, I'd never win my home state. Does that mean I shouldn't run for President?

I'm sorry, I've never cared for that reasoning. Don't get me wrong, you would expect a Presidential candidate to win his home state, but saying he didn't deserve the election because his home state didn't vote for him, especially when his opponent's home state has the second most Electoral College votes, and your opponent's brother is the governor of the state with the fourth or fifth most Electoral College votes (Florida, the state of dispute), it just seems wrong to me to say you don't deserve to win in an election because you can't win Tennessee.

 

[shattered dreams]

I didn't find the electoral college aspect sad as much as the partisan aspects of the vote counting issues in Florida. Why are biased public officials and the arbitrary leanings of Courts deciding an election?

I think the electoral college is probably a good thing. The real issue is that there is only a two party system and the voting system isn't built well to handle an evenly divided country. The nice thing about some European systems with more than two parties is that the voting itself necessitates compromise just to form the government. It would be nice to see half of the country not get completely ignored and have the policy more accurately represent the moderate stance of the American public instead of just swinging to whatever side barely won this time as opposed to last. To be fair the one thing about the two party system that is a benefit is the stability. However, I think at this point both sides in Washington are abusing that "benefit."

 

[klunderbunker]

The electoral college used to be a great idea. Now though, there isn't a wild west and voting stations that it took 3 days to get to. You can relatively easily count all the votes and other than it being time consuming, there's not much that should be complicated to it. The concept was fine in the 1800s, but with cars and early voting and all that jazz, it comes off as antiquated.

 

[Big Nick Dudley]

I'll be voting Obama again. Why? To help prevent the ascension of an extremist, which will be the alternative. Yes, that includes Mitt "I'm Not A Real Human Being" Romney.

 

[shattered dreams]

I disagree KB. The only time the difference really matters is in a tight race. Without it all the campaigning would be just to get their base to vote more in highly populated areas. With it every potentially available Electoral College vote matters and thus they have to focus on the truly undecided and swing voters in a variety of places.

I think people often miss one key aspect of the Electoral College system. Everyone that lives in one of those states that almost always votes one way acknowledges the frustrations that causes because their vote will never "count." What is not realized quite as often is that the system does in fact "cap" the advantage of having those states that will always support you. Basically anything over 51% in most states doesn't mean anything either. The people in the less than 50% percent group are not the only ones not having their vote "counted."

 

[klunderbunker]

Yeah but it takes the votes out of the hands of the people. You could win I think it's 10 or 11 states and win the White House. The people in the other states don't need to be heard at all and the race could be over. How is that fair?

 

[shattered dreams]

Yeah but it takes the votes out of the hands of the people. You could win I think it's 10 or 11 states and win the White House. The people in the other states don't need to be heard at all and the race could be over. How is that fair?

That is more of a hypothetical than what happens in reality. Also, I am reasonably sure theoretically the same thing could be true in a popular vote scenario.

 

[X]

It's gonna take more than a fired-up speech to make me vote for Obama again. I really just don't care about their speaking abilities if I disagree with their policies.

I'll probably wind up voting for him again anyways though since there are probably not going to be any decent candidates to compete with him.

 

[shattered dreams]

What I am saying is that in practice the Electoral College tends to end up forcing the candidates and parties to place the emphasis in the "correct" place. From a Darwinist perspective the system also encourages states to be moderate as the system essentially rewards the states that the race is close in. In popular vote scenarios extremism tends to reign supreme. You can see this when it comes to primaries.

 

[klunderbunker]

That is more of a hypothetical than what happens in reality. Also, I am reasonably sure theoretically the same thing could be true in a popular vote scenario.

Here's the thing though: under the current system, it's possible for someone to receive the most votes, meaning the majority of the voters say he's the person we want running the country, but the other person wins. I can't understand a circumstance in the modern world where that's fair/makes sense.

 

[Serious Mozzarella]

I will NOT vote Republican. Otherwise it'll be up to policies.

 

[shattered dreams]

I can't understand a circumstance in the modern world where that's fair/makes sense.

Remember again that in real world scenarios this only happens when the vote is pretty close to begin with. Why this might be fair and make sense is that the person that lost the Electoral vote failed to appeal to a broad enough spectrum of people and states. The issue in 2000 wasn't the Electoral College, it was Florida and the fact that our voting systems are extremely suspect when it comes to a vote that close. By most accounts Gore actually had more votes in Florida once the dust cleared but that did not matter because the issue had already been "resolved."

Anyway, how you count the votes isn't the issue. The issue is that there is nothing forcing two parties that both got less than 50 percent of the popular vote to work together. Bush wasn't that bad until he basically got carte blanche. Overbearing "conservative" policy for the entire nation was not the will of the people by any stretch of the imagination and if Gore had taken it that far the other way that would not have been true either. Maybe at this point the system of checks and balances has ceased to function properly.

 

[X]

I will NOT vote Republican. Otherwise it'll be up to policies.

The only Republican I'd vote for would be Ron Paul.

 

[Slyfox696]

It's gonna take more than a fired-up speech to make me vote for Obama again. I really just don't care about their speaking abilities if I disagree with their policies.

I'll probably wind up voting for him again anyways though since there are probably not going to be any decent candidates to compete with him.

I will NOT vote Republican. Otherwise it'll be up to policies.

X, if Obama isn't enough to make you vote for him, always follow the Cheese Man's advice.

 

[X]

Why? The Democratic party is full of just as many liars and scumbags as the Republican party is. I'll vote for someone if I agree with their policies and their intentions for when they become president, regardless of what party they're affiliated to. This "party loyalty" shit just pisses me off honestly, whether it's Republicans or Democrats.

However since my personal politics tend to be leftist obviously I wind up voting and agreeing with Democrats more than Republicans, but it doesn't mean they aren't both totally flawed parties full of empty-headed morons.

I like Obama for the most part though and think he's done a more than adequate job as president, so I'll probably wind up voting for him again because there's not going to be any worthwhile competition most likely.

 

[klunderbunker]

Remember again that in real world scenarios this only happens when the vote is pretty close to begin with. Why this might be fair and make sense is that the person that lost the Electoral vote failed to appeal to a broad enough spectrum of people and states. The issue in 2000 wasn't the Electoral College, it was Florida and the fact that our voting systems are extremely suspect when it comes to a vote that close. By most accounts Gore actually had more votes in Florida once the dust cleared but that did not matter because the issue had already been "resolved."

Anyway, how you count the votes isn't the issue. The issue is that there is nothing forcing two parties that both got less than 50 percent of the popular vote to work together. Bush wasn't that bad until he basically got carte blanche. Overbearing "conservative" policy for the entire nation was not the will of the people by any stretch of the imagination and if Gore had taken it that far the other way that would not have been true either. Maybe at this point the system of checks and balances has ceased to function properly.

Wouldn't have mattered if he was the second coming of Lincoln. He didn't have as many votes and by that shouldn't have won in a system that made sense.

 

[Slyfox696]

Why? The Democratic party is full of just as many liars and scumbags as the Republican party is.

No doubt they are. But the Democrats aren't supporting the idea of telling people who can barely support themselves being told they're going to lose more of their hard-earned money, just so those, as Obama put it, "corporate jet owners, or oil and gas producers, or people who are making millions or billions of dollars" can make even more money.

To me, that's just inherently wrong. I'm not saying Democrats are right, just that Republicans are wrong. So I would never vote Republican.


Sorry Shocky, I know you've claimed to be Republican, but I just can't get behind what Republicans have been trying to sell. You're still my hero though.

 

[klunderbunker]

At the moment, hedge fund managers that are making upwards of 8 figures a year pay lower tax rates than their secretaries. According to the GOP, this is fine and should stay. I can't go for that.

 

[Serious Mozzarella]

The only Republican I'd vote for would be Ron Paul.

His economic positions are problematic at best during hard economic times, yo. His social policies are great, though. He's a true libertarian, and not a HERP DERP GLENN BECK libertarian.

 

[shattered dreams]

It is somewhat of a myth that Democrats are that much better when it comes to economic issues for the middle class. The fact is that both parties cater to the rich in ways well beyond what the average citizen feels is appropriate. Both parties are in bed with big business lobbyists. Democrats are usually the lesser of two evils to me but the gap seems to continually be closing. It would not shock me if sooner than later the only real differences were on irrelevant social matters that people can be easily coaxed into being distracted by.

 

[Serious Mozzarella]

It is somewhat of a myth that Democrats are that much better when it comes to economic issues for the middle class. The fact is that both parties cater to the rich in ways well beyond what the average citizen feels is appropriate. Both parties are in bed with big business lobbyists. Democrats are usually the lesser of two evils to me but the gap seems to continually be closing. It would not shock me if sooner than later the only real differences were on irrelevant social matters that people can be easily coaxed into being distracted by.

It's only because both parties, on average, tend to cater to the rich/corporations, so you're kind of forced to look at each individual candidate's political positions, because they're certainly not ALL like that.

What I don't understand though, is how this country got itself into a position where there's only one choice of two absolutely similar candidates. The people who thought up this system of elections are rolling in their fucking graves.

 

[Slyfox696]

It is somewhat of a myth that Democrats are that much better when it comes to economic issues for the middle class.

What's not a myth is the fact Republicans are currently willing to send let our country default just so the wealthiest people in our country won't have to pay more money. The proposal Obama talked about didn't even raise tax rates, it just eliminated loopholes and deductions.

This was unacceptable to the Republican party, even though the proposal did exactly as they asked with "no tax hikes".

 

[shattered dreams]

The accusation you levy is true while the motivations behind it I think are still up for debate. Although most of the motivations would hardly make you sympathetic to their cause.

Along the lines of what me and bolf are talking about ine might wonder how you just so easily became accepting of more debt because of the supposed lack of another option.

 

[Slyfox696]

The accusation you levy is true while the motivations behind it I think are still up for debate. Although most of the motivations would hardly make you sympathetic to their cause.

Along the lines of what me and bolf are talking about you might wonder just how you just so easily became accepting of more debt because of the supposed lack of another option.

I've been saying for a while I believe the motivation is to win the next Presidential election. Obviously, Republicans still want the tide of money to keep rolling into their pockets, but in that, they are no different than Democrats.

 

[shattered dreams]

I've been saying for a while I believe the motivation is to win the next Presidential election. Obviously, Republicans still want the tide of money to keep rolling into their pockets, but in that, they are no different than Democrats.

I agree on that motivation being the likely reason. The second sentence comes close to contradicting your prior point though, which is the reason I questioned it to begin with.